REQUEST FOR LITIGATION RECORDS FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court Counsel
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Suite 546
Los Angeles, California 90012
213.217.4960 facsimile
bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org
By Email and by fax


URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE - Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS

Mr Bianco:
I am writing to you again to inform you of the refusal of Santa Monica Clerk’s Office to provide essential litigation records, and to request your help in ensuring that such records are immediately provided, and that abuse of my rights pursuant to the US Constitution, Amendment 5th and 14th, is immediately put to an end.
This is a far cry from a request for “secretarial functions” as you termed it in your April 4th, 2008 letter.
For many months I and my counsels were denied any access to litigation records in “Samaan v Zernik” as evidenced by verified declarations by legal services providers who tried to gain such access on my behalf, and my attorneys’ behalf, unsuccessfully. These services providers are surely familiar with the arrangements for payment, pick up, etc.
In recent months, as always, I am struggling to obtain access to my litigation records. The Court of Judge Terry Friedman has repeatedly refused to notice Minute Order, in abuse of my Due Process rights, and has insisted that I have to obtain them one by one (and guess when and how many were issued) from the Clerk’s office.
To keep myself informed, even if after the fact, I try periodically to obtain comprehensive set of Minute Orders and Case History from Sustain. Such efforts have always been stalled and delayed. In the past two weeks I am attempting to obtain the Minute Orders for the period of Jan 1, 2008- to present, and Case History in Sustain - to present. After many delays, legal services provider finally obtained these documents from the Clerk’s office.
However, a third critical document is still missing. Such document was promised, but was never provided. Such document was to be a printout from Sustain, including:
a) The ID Number of each Action.
In Sustain – most often the number first appears with the Journal Entry – documenting the initial payment at the time of filing for a motion, and such number defines the start of a new register Event in Sustain.
All such numbers are omitted from all printouts that I have ever received from West District, Santa Monica. But such numbers do appear in printouts of West District, Beverly Hills Actions.
b) The Time of filing and Entry and Titles of papers filed by parties in conjunction with such Event
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Document Filed.
c) Calendar information of the hearing, or no appearance review in chambers.
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Events
d) Time and succinct summary of judicial acts in the action.


In Sustain – such data are most often entered as Event Complete, simply stating: Denied, Granted, Granted in part, etc.
To the best of my knowledge such printout is termed in Sustain Register of Actions, and it is a critical litigation record. The quintessential feature of the Register of Actions is the appearance of the register numbers. Other features may or may not appear in a given printout.
I was promised such a printout yesterday, and I made necessary arrangements for pay and pickup, but such was not provided to the legal services providers. I asked for it again today by phone from John.
I again ask that you ensure that I am immediately provided with such printout.
I am also copying Mr Klunder, Director of the Court’s IT Department, on this communication, in hope that he would help and shed light on the name of the most appropriate Sustain report that includes the information described above.


Joseph Zernik
CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director

ARLAND ON COUNTRYWIDE

EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN AND MEN

(2006)

SOLD

http://jonathanarland.com/

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL RESISTANCE – GREAT AMERICAN TRADITIONS

From Puritans through Thoreau and Martin Luther King to rave parties, Presidents Carter and Eisenhower...

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Author of "Resistance to Civil Government" (1849)

Writing in Foreign Affairs (Human Rights and the American Tradition, 1978), Arthur Schlesiger states:
“Human rights -- roughly the idea that all individuals everywhere are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on this earth -- is a relatively modern proposition. Political orators like to trace this idea to religious sources, especially to the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense -- not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their addiction to slavery, torture, wartime atrocities and genocide.”

One may very well differ.

Already in the Five Books of Moses, one may find discussion of various forms of government and branches of government, with clear limits set on their discretion, and consequently – on their legitimacy.

Deuteronomy, 17:14-20 includes Laws pertaining to Kings, which can be seen as setting the grounds for the conflict of Henry VIII and Thomas More, and also for the checks and balances among the branches of government:

”16: But he[the king] shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18: And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:”

The return to Egypt may very well be read as a figurative prohibition on enslavement of subjects by the king, and big government is clearly disfavored.

Similarly, the Five Books of Moses do include clear commandment regarding the conduct during wartime, putting limits on atrocities, whether or not in a manner acceptable by contemporary standards. Such laws also distinguished in a meaningful way between wars that are an absolute must for the safety and security of the subjects, and wars that are declared at government’s discretion.
Deuteronomy 20:5-14
"5: And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6: And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7: And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. “…
10: When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11: And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12: And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

The five books of Moses surely do not advocate “addiction to slavery”, on the contrary, they mandate emancipation of all slaves on the seventh year.
“…in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 15:13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:”

And a verse from the Five Books of Moses (Leviticus), referring to the jubilee and the freeing of slaves is engraved on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia:

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof "

And in a clear commandment that surely resonated with the abolitionists states:
“23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 23:16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”

The Five books of Moses, also speak of the need to appoint judges who are impartial - an early code of judicial ethics:
Deuteronomy 16:18-20:
18: Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. 19: Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20: That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

One may also call Schlesiger to task for another incorrect statement in the same article:
“…humanitarianism -- the notion that natural rights have immediate, concrete and universal application - -- is a product of the last four centuries.”

The origins of this modern concept are often traced to a very clearly promulgated document, perhaps the most significant, early Modern document - Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486), written when he was just 23 years of age, and surprisingly born out of his immersion in the study of Caballah and the Song of Solomon… And Pico’s Manifesto was in and of itself an act of civil resistance, since it was sent as the opening statement to a polemic letter to the Pope, and that and more landed him for some time in jail.

With all these disclaimers, one must still agree with Schlesinger that Human Rights and Civil Rights are a tradition that is deeply embedded in the American fabric.

These points are connected, of course through the Puritan tradition. It is no accident that the one of the early Puritan rebellious acts was unauthorized translations of the bible into the vernacular – English. Therefore, making it accessible to all members of the congregation. The insistence on accessibility of the law – engraved in the United States Constitution, as part of the 5th and the 14th Amendment – Due Process of the Law, can be traced back to that principle.

It is therefore no accident that Anabaptist congregations such as the Mennonites and the Quakerswere were at the forefront of abolition and anti war protests, as forms of civil resistance based on their religious convictions.

From there on, one may make an relatively small leap to the icon of Civil Resistance in the US and the world - Henry David Thoreau, and his "Resistance to Civil Government" (1848).

In it, to clearly distinguish himself from anarchist, Thoreau states:
“I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” .

Thoreau’s clashes with government are not surprisingly centered on slavery and war. Thoreau’s own ideas were vastly influenced by Ralf Waldo Emerson, and Emerson himself was the product of a long line of Unitarian Ministers…closely tied (even in dispute) to Harvard Divinity School.

Summing his own philosophy, Emeson is said to have stated it to proclaim:

"the infinitude of the private man."

Emerson too, was a abolitionist, but his approach never culminated in the resistence that landed Thoreau in jail. On the contrary, Emerson is the one who paid Thoreau’s tax, to get him out of jail…

This difference is summed up in the tradition that relates the anecdote of Emerson’s visit with Thoreau in jail:
"What are you doing in there?" Emerson asked.
Thoreau replied: "What are you doing out there?"

In his eulogy

of Thoreau, Emerson said:

“He was a speaker and actor of the truth, born such, and was ever running into dramatic situations from this cause.”
And -

“No truer American existed than Thoreau.”

Thoreau and Civil Resistance became a popular culture icons again in the 1960’s, with MLK, the Baptist Minister, the civil rights movement, and the anti- Vietnam war protests. Joan Baez, for example, who grew up not far from Concord and Walden Pond, repeated the defiant act of Thoreau by refusing in 1964 to pay 60% of her tax bill, as an antiwar protest.

In recent years civil restistance have seen a new development – rave dance parties have become both in north America and in Europe the main instrument of civil resistance of the anti globalization movement, not the least because of the emphatically civil and non-violent nature of such protest.

In historical perspective, the Carter Presidency, for better and worse, is likely to be the judged as uniquely American phenomenon. In it, promotion of peace and civil rights sincerely became the corner stone of foreign policy of the leading superpower. Needless to say, in historical perspective, Jimmy Carter may also be judged to be the 20th century’s American president who was most religiously anchored.

And uniquely American in historical perspective, no doubt, is also the defiant act of another American 2oth century president, who in historical perspective may be judged to be one of the greatest of that century - one, who as a youth rebelled against his Quaker parental tradition and enlisted in the military – Dwight Eisenhower. He ended up his presidency with a Farewell Address denouncing Military-Industrial Complex, and the danger it posed to American democracy. That address became of course a classic reference among those who advocate civil resistance for various causes, but the fact that such an address was made by a president, can clearly be defined as a uniquely American phenomenon, one that is rooted in the Quaker tradition he grew up in, and rebelled against – the tradition of civil resistance.

OPEN LETTER TO SAMUELS - COLLUSION IN FRUAD

Moshe’ ben Maimon / Maimonides (1138, Cordoba Spain – 1204, Fustat, Egypt) -Historically renowned medieval Jewish codifier

March 19, 2008

Att Sandor Samuels
By Open Letter to the Los Angeles Jewish and/or Legal Communities and
By email and by fax to Bryan Cave, LLP

OPEN LETTER TO MR SANDOR SAMUELS – PRESIDENT OF BET TZEDEK - “HOUSE OF JUSTICE”
RE: Notice to cease and desist collusion in fraud and obstruction of justice, and to mitigate damages.
Timed response requested by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm

Mr Samuels:

On web pages of Bet Tzedek you described yourself as personally responsible for all litigation matters at Countrywide. You also pronounced your commitment to fight fraud throughout Southern California. Similarly, Mr Mozilo, in web pages still posted, advocates Corporate Ethics in Countrywide* and pronounces his commitment to fight fraud in Countrywide. Both Mr Mozilo and Mr Samuels are charged with the safeguard of integrity of operations at Countrywide as Officers, Mr Samuels also as Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr Mozilo also as Chair of the Internal Audit Committee.

Moreover, Mr Samuels recently filed a Notice of Person in Interest in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), when the case was in the courtroom of Judge Terry Friedman – former Executive Director of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. And Judge Friedman to date refuses to file statements on the record regarding his relationships with Mr Samuels – current President of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice” and David Pasternak – former President of Bet Tzedek –“House of Justice” – out of compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
Therefore, Zernik approached Mr Samuels in the past, and is approaching Mr Samuels again to cease and desist collusion in fraud with Samaan, and to mitigate damages to Zernik.

Countrywide’s wrongful and harmful collusion in fraud in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was originally related to a letter, declarations, and documents submitted by Maria McLaurin, San Rafael’s Branch Manager, and an acquaintance of JR Lloyd - Samaan’s husband:
a. 11-6-06 Letter by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as an exhibit to 11-6-06 Parks Supplemental Declaration, part of Samaan’s Sur Reply to Defendant Zernik motion to expunge lis pendens, heard Nov 9, 2006
b. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as evidence in Samaan’s opposition to Zernik’s motion to expunge lis pendens, heard, July 23, 2007.
c. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin, described above, was filed a second time in Plaintiff Samaan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007
d. 8-3-07 Supplemental Declaration by Maria McLaurin, filed in Plaintiff Samaan’s Reply brief in her motion for summary judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007. In this declaration McLaurin also refers to the document purported to be a copy of a fax transmission of a purchase contract from Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm.

Such declarations and documents filed by Maria McLaurin were critical to Samaan’s case, since her claims, far fetched as they were, had no documentary evidence whatsoever in Samaan’s loan file. In order to fabricate such readings into documents from the loan file, Maria McLaurin entered a number of critical false and deliberately misleading statements in her letter, declarations, and in the identification of the respective Countrywide documents.
Shifting litigation on Samaan’s failure to perform on her 2004 contract to the unbelievable arena of Samaan’s loan underwriting, provided great advantages to Samaan:
a. Defendant Zernik had no part in this process, and relied entirely on information provided by Samaan and Countrywide, almost 2 years after the fact.
b. Samaan had access through her husband, JR Lloyd (unlicensed, but active as “Originator”) to San Rafael Branch Manager who was able, willing, and ready to produce such false declarations.
c. Countrywide’s legal department was willing to collude in the fraud by providing false information, and deleting critical information from Subpoena production.
d. Countrywide’s top officers – Samuels and Mozilo – refused to act in any way to stop such fraud.

Maria McLaurin was the person most knowledgeable regarding Countrywide’s operations and procedures in the context of Samaan v Zernik. Therefore, the only way to undermine her false declarations and misrepresentation of documents was to approach higher management in Countrywide. For that purpose – Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels were requested in the past, and are requested again, to authenticate or repudiate critical documents that were misrepresented by Maria McLaurin:
a. The document attached to her 11/6/06 and her 5-23-07 declarations filed in court - misrepresented as a true and correct copy of an October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
b. The document referenced in her 8-3-07 declaration – misrepresented as a copy of an Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm fax transmission from Parks to Countrywide of the Purchase Contract.
c. The document attached to her 8-3-07 declaration – October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter notifying suspension, misrepresented as an approval letter.

Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo have refused so far to respond to any question regarding these documents for about a full year. Instead, they chose to take various actions in Samaan v Zernik, which are still pending review, and are alleged by Zernik to constitute abuse of his rights per the U.S. Constitution Amendments 1st, 5th, and 14th.

One must also recall that in early 2007 Defendant Zernik was often labeled “conspiracy theorist” for making allegations that Countrywide filed fraudulent documents in court, and also for making allegations that Countrywide was involved in a massive fraud against the U.S. Government.

More recently, NYT reported on Jan 8, 2008, a case of “recreated letters” filed by Countrywide in a Pennsylvania Court, and LAT reported on March 6, 2008, rebuke of Countrywide in a Texas court where ‘Countrywide and its lawyers showed "a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system’.

Therefore, Zernik’s allegations regarding Countrywide’s litigation methods are by now common public knowledge. And allegations of fraud against the US Government and against share-holders are under numerous investigations and litigations now. However, it appears that some Los Angeles Courts are more permissive or even supportive even today of Countrywide’s litigation methods, and of real-estate and mortgage fraud in general, compared to their peers elsewhere. One must wonder what part geographical differences among the courts may have in the fact that Los Angeles has become what is described in an FBI report the “epicenter” of a U.S. real estate and mortgage fraud epidemic that is a high national priority to fight.

Mr Samuels, please accept this letter as a demand that you and Mr Mozilo:
a. Review the letter, declarations, and documents (a-d, above) provided by Maria McLaurin, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, San Rafael Wholesale Branch Manager, for filing by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide - find them true and correct in all their statements and representations.
b. Review in particular the documents filed or referenced by Maria McLaurin (a-c, above), in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide – are willing to authenticate these documents as represented by Maria McLaurin.

Please also accept this notice as a demand for Mr Samuels immediate resignation from the position of President of the Board of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. The continued association of Mr Samuels name with the name of this organization is a disgrace to Bet Tzedek, a disgrace to the Jewish community, and a disgrace to Justice itself.

Please respond by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zernik

* Countrywide here denotes Countrywide Financial Corporation and/or any and all of its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, jointly and/or severally.

08-03-21 countrywide - judge bohm texas march 6-08 opinion

Case 05-90374 Document 248 Filed in TXSB on 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON SHOW CAUSE ORDERS OF
FEBRUARY 12. 2007 AND MAY 18. 2007

I. Introduction
The matter before this Court began with a routine motion to lift stay, but has spiraled into a lengthy ordeal which has cost the parties substantial time, attorneys' fees, and costs. Over one year ago, on February 6,2007, the Court sought a simple answer to a simple question-why was a motion to lift stay being withdrawn? The movant's attorney, rather than answer the question truthfully by admitting that the motion was based upon an incorrect payment history, attempted to conceal the truth from the court - that the motion should have never been filed. This rather narrow issue, precipitated an expansive proceeding. During several hearings over the past year, the court received evidence on a wide range of misconduct beyond this initial misrepresentation.

...

Their collective conduct caused this Court to issue two Show Cause Orders. This Memorandum Opinion discusses how their actions in the case at bar have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system. 1

OPEN LETTER- PASTERNAK

OPEN LETTER TO ATT. DAVID PASTERNAK - FORMER PRESIDENT OF "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" - BET TZEDEK

Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907, Warsaw ?- 1972, USA)

- prominent Modern Jewish leader and civil rights activist

"Here and there we find those who refuse to remain silent behind the safe security of stained glass windows" - MLK on Rabbi Heschel

March 15, 2008

Los Angeles Jewish Community and/or

Los Angeles Legal Community

RE: OPEN LETTER TO ATT DAVID PASTERNAK, FORMER PRESIDENT, "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" - BET TZEDEK & RECEIVER IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)

Copied below is my letter sent by email and by fax to Att Pastternak himself.

Joseph Zernik

March 15, 2008

Att David Pasternak
Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, A Law Corporation

Former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek

Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

By Email and by Fax

RE: Notice to cease and desist and to mitigate damages.

Timed response requested by Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 5:00pm

Mr Pasternak:

Please note - this notice is not part of any discovery process in Samaan v Zernik (LA Superior Court), neither is it part of any discovery process Zernik v LA Superior Court (California Court of Appeals), nor in Zernik v Connor (US District Court).

This notice is copied to Members of the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice", calling upon them, jointly and/or severally, to exercise their fiduciary duties and to review the over-extended term of Sandor Samuels as President of the Board.

This notice is also copied to persons in the Los Angeles Jewish community and various Los Angeles law firms, calling upon such to review their relationship and support for Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice", in itself a worthy charity, under the presidency of Sandor Samuels.

Please accept this letter as a notice to cease and desist from any conduct resulting in any further abuse of Defendant Zernik?s rights for free speech, for due process (including the right for protected speech in defense of himself as Defendant in pro per), and for possession - per the US Constitution (Amendment 1st, 5th, and 14th), as a protest of past abuses of such rights, and as an attempt to safeguard against further abuses.

Please also accept this letter as a demand to mitigate damages, among other ways - by providing the information requested below.

A. Authority of Judge Terry Friedman(former Executive Director ? ?House of Justice - "Bet Tzedek") in Samaan v Zernik

California Rules of Court say:
2008 California Rules of Court Rule 8.770. Substitute judge where trial judge unavailableWhenever by these rules any act is required to be done by the judge who tried the case, and such judge is unavailable or unable to act at the time fixed therefor, the act shall be done by another judge of the same court, to be designated by the presiding judge thereof, or if there is no judge of the court available to act, then the act shall be done by a judge designated by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

1) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Terry Friedman ever secure a valid re-assignment order in Samaan v Zernik after the disqualification of Judge Hart-Cole, herself of dubious authority?

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

E. DisqualificationA judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law. In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or theirlawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

2) Based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman, former Executive Director, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek, required by the Code of Judicial Ethics to disqualify himself, of his own volition, in Samaan v Zernik, in relationship to the involvement of Att David Patterson ? former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek, and Att Sandor Samuels ? current President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek?

3) Since he did not disqualify of his own volition and did not disqualify in response to two filings by a party per CCP §170.3, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman required by California Code of Judicial Ethics to enter, of his own volition, statement(s) on the record regarding his relationship with Att David Patterson, former President, Bet Tzedek- "House of Justice", and Att Sandor Samuels ? current President, Bet Tzedek- "House of Justice"??

4) Since he did not enter such statements on the record of his own volition, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman required to enter such statements in response to requests by a party?

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

(5) Under no circumstance shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan ifthe donor or lender is a party whose interests have come or are reasonably likelyto come before the judge. A judge shall discourage members of the judge's familyresiding in the judge's household from accepting similar benefits from parties who have come or are reasonably likely to come before the judge.

5) Based on your own current best legal judgment - was Judge Terry Friedman required to enter statements regarding gifts, funds, loans, or valuable goods or services that he or family members residing in his household may have accepted from Att Pasternak or Att Samuels, once requested to do so by a party?

California Code of Civil Procedure ?170.3 says:

(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:

(1)(A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding....?

(2)(A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, or in any other proceeding involving the same issues he or she served as a lawyer for any party in the present proceeding or gave advice to any party in the present proceeding upon any matter involved in the action or proceeding.?

(B) A judge shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if within the past two years:

(i) A party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee of a party was a client of the judge when the judge was in the private practice of law or a client of a lawyer with whom the judge was associated in the private practice of law.

(ii) A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in the private practice of law with the judge.

(C) A judge who served as a lawyer for or officer of a public agency that is a party to the proceeding shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if he or she personally advised or in any way represented the public agency concerning the factual or legal issues in the proceeding.

(3)(A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding

...

(6)(A) For any reason:

(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.

(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.

(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification

....

6) Since Judge Terry Friedman has refused to enter any such statements, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Friedman required by law to disqualify when asked to do so by a party by filings per CCP §170.3?

7) Since he so far has refused to disqualify in response to filings per CCP ?170.3, best on your own current best legal judgment, do you deem Judge Friedman at present as holding valid authority as presiding judge in Samaan v Zernik?

B. David Pasternak?s (former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek) Authority as Receiver in Samaan v Zernik

8) Based on your own current best legal judgment - do you hold valid authority as Receiver pursuant to California Code and California Rules of Court in Samaan v Zernik?

9) If you deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik invalid, based on your own current best legal judgment ? wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages by immediately resigning your duties as receiver in Samaan v Zernik?

10) If you deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik invalid, based on your own current best legal judgment - wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages by immediately entering a statement, of your own volition, declaring your own current best legal judgment regarding the disposition of such funds upon your resignation, if any?

11) If you do deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik valid, based on your own current best legal judgment - what is the source of your authority as Receiver (if any) in Samaan v Zernik per California Code and/or Rules of Court?

12) Based on your own current best legal judgment - for what specific purpose, and on what legal foundation did you acquire, as Receiver, the authority to issue loans, with no specific requirement to obtain separate court authorization, and in unlimited sums, in the name of Defendant Zernik in Samaan v Zernik?

C. Continued Refusal of the Court to Release Defendant?s Funds Which are His Proceeds from the Sale of His Residence by the Court.

California Rules of Court say:
2008 California Rules of Court

Rule 3.1179. The Receiver

(a) Agent of the court The receiver is the agent of the court and not of any party, and as such:

(1)Is neutral;

(2)Acts for the benefit of all who may have an interest in the receivership property; and

(3)Holds assets for the court and not for the plaintiff or the defendant.

13) Based on your own current best legal judgment - what is the legal foundation for the Court?s right to continue to hold Defendant's funds?

14) At present, does any party other than Zernik in Samaan v Zernik have any legitimate interest in these funds?If so, what is the legal foundation of such interests?

15) In a hearing before Judge Terry Friedman, you indicated your willingness to release funds you are holding, originally over $700,000, to Defendant Zernik, and your desire to be relieved of your duties in Samaan v Zernik ASAP. Based on your own current best legal judgment, is there any particular writing or any other action required of Defendant Zernik that would be necessary to allow you to release these funds to Defendant Zernik and to be relieved of your duties as receiver?

D. Receipt of Valid Court Order for Payment of Sanctions against Zernik and in favor of Countrywide

18) Please inform Defendant Zernik immediately if you received or when you will receive a notice of order for sanctions (exceeding $16,000) from any source that you deem valid and sufficient for payment purposes (relative to purported sanctions against Defendant Zernik by Judge Friedman), based on your best legal judgment.

E. December 7, 2007 Ex Parte Appearances before Judge Hart-Cole (Limited Department, Beverly Hills, and Judge Collins, Unlimited Department, Santa Monica)

19) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole (Limited Department, Beverly Hills) ever hold any valid authority in Samaan v Zernik?

20) Did you issue a notice of the ex parte appearance before Judge Hart-Cole on December 7, 2007 to Counsel for Mara Escrow?

21) Were you part of any discussion or advance agreement with Judge Hart-Cole and/or Counsel for Mara Escrow that he would be allowed to appear incognito, never being introduced, and his participation never mentioned in the transcript?

22) Based on your own best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole, in Beverly Hills, on December 7, 2007, have any authority whatsoever, after being disqualified on that day, to issue an order for an ex parte hearing, within 30 minutes, in Santa Monica Courthouse?

23) Based on your own best legal judgment, did you provide Defendant Zernik proper notice and other due process rights relative to your ex parte appearance before Judge Collins in Santa Monica Courthouse on December 7, 2007?

24) Based on your own best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole, in Beverly Hills, on December 7, 2007, have any authority whatsoever, after being disqualified on that day, to transfer the case or re-assign the case to Judge Terry Friedman an order for an ex parte hearing, within 30 minutes, in Santa Monica Courthouse?

F. December 7, 2007 Mara Escrow Indemnity Agreement

25) Were you ordered by Judge Hart-Cole or any other judge to draft the indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow and bring it to Court approval on December 7, 2007, or was it an act of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

26) Based on your own current best legal judgment, do you consider this indemnity agreement an adequate and appropriate indemnity agreement? Do you consider it valid?

27) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Collins, with short (30 min) notice, and with no access to court file in Samaan v Zernik, have reasonable understanding of the orders and stipulations that you brought for her approval in your ex parte appearance with attorney from Mara Escrow on December 7, 2007?

28) Based on your own current best legal judgment, if you hold that indemnity agreement inadequate, inappropriate, and/or invalid, wouldn't it be advisable for you in order to mitigate damages, to immediately move to vacate such an indemnity agreement?

G. December 7, 2007 Gag Order

29) Were you ordered by Judge Hart-Cole or any other judge to draft the gag order and bring it to Court approval on December 7, 2007, or was it an act of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

30) Based on your own current best legal judgment, is Defendant Zernik still bound by the gag order you drafted and brought to court approval on December 7, 2007, prohibiting him from speech with Escrow and Title Companies? Was it a gag order that was infinite in time, or was gag order expired by now?

31) Based on your own current best legal judgment, is there any conduct advisable for you at present in order to mitigate damages to Defendant Zernik, if any, resulting from such December 7, 2007 gag order?

H. December 2007 Transfer of Title of Defendant Zernik?s Property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills

32) Which specific California Code sections and/or California Rules of Court did you follow in procedures you undertook for the transfer of the title of Zernik's real property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, to Plaintiff Nivie Samaan and/or others?

33) Who did you transfer the title of the property to? When? On what legal grounds?

34) Did the procedures that you undertook in transferring the title madate the presentation of a certified and/or authenticated Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court before a County or State official or agency in order to effectuate such a transfer of title? If presentation of a Judgment was required, please provide Defendant Zernik a copy of the certified and/or authenticated Judgment by Court that you used for this purpose. If not ? please provide copies of the documents that you used to establish and certify your valid authority to transfer such title.

35) Were you explicitly instructed by Judge Segal, or any other judge to use those specific procedures based on such specific Code Sections and/or Rules of Court, and those specific documents to establish and certify your authority for the transfer of the title of Defendant Zernik?s property, or were those procedures that you undertook of your own volition, and documents that you chose to present of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

36) Based on your own current best legal judgment, were these procedures appropriate and adequate? Do you consider them valid?

37) What conduct, if any, do you consider advisable, based on your current best legal judgment, to mitigate damages to Zernik from your conduct relative to taking possession of his home and the transfer of the title to the property to others in December 2007?

I. Conduct of Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et al, LLP) Counsel for Plaintiff, and Att John Amberg and Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP), Counsels for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Sandor Samuels, and Angelo Mozilo

38) In relationship to the transfer of title to Defendant Zernik?s residence, in relationship to the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP ?437c, or in any other instance, did you have sufficient evidence to either reasonably suspect or reasonably conclude that Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et al) engaged in what may be deemed misconduct? Any conduct that may be deemed extrinsic or intrinsic fraud and/or deceit and/or an attempt at fraud and/or deceit? Any conduct that may be deemed in violation of the California State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct? If so, wouldn't it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect in Samaan v Zernik?

39) In relationship to the sanctions requested and imposed against Defendant Zernik and in favor of Countrywide, and in relationship to Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt against Defendant Zernik, or in any other instance, did you have sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the Att John Amberg and/or Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) engaged in what may be deemed misconduct? Any conduct that may be deemed extrinsic or intrinsic fraud and/or deceit and/or an attempt of fraud and/or deceit? Any conduct that may be deemed in violation of the California State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct? If so, wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect in Samaan v Zernik?

J. Conduct of Judges of the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik

40) Did you have sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that any judge(s) or staff of the LA Superior Court engaged in Misconduct and/or Willful misconduct in Samaan v Zernik? If so, wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect on the record in Samaan v Zernik?

K. Mistrial in Samaan v Zernik

41) Best on your own current best legal judgment, and the facts as known to you, should Samaan v Zernik be deemed mistrial? Why?

42) If you hold that Samaan v Zernik should be deemed mistrial, wouldn?t it be advisable for you, in order to mitigate damages, to enter of your own volition a statement to that effect on the record in Samaan v Zernik?

L . Fiduciary Duties of the Members of the Board and President of the Board of "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek

43) Based on your own current best legal judgment, and based on your experience as Member of the Board and President of ?House of Justice? ? Bet Tzedek ? what is the advisable conduct of the Members of the Board, jointly and/or severally pursuant to their fiduciary duties, under the current circumstances?

44) Based on your own current best legal judgment, and based on your experience as Member of the Board and President of ?House of Justice? ? Bet Tzedek ? what is the advisable conduct of the current President of the Board, Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, pursuant to his fiduciary duties, under the current circumstances?

Please respond by Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zernik

LET'S GIVE JUSTICE (AND BET TZEDEK) A CHANCE...

Justice Louis D. Brandeis by Andy Warhol (1980)

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time we fail to protest" -Elie Wiesel

March 13, 2008

Dear Friend:

I would like to share with you that a public record was filed in Santa Monica Court on March 12, 2008:

"Notice to the Honorable Judge Friedman to Cease and Desist, Alternatively - Filing for Immediate Disqualification per CCP §170.3".


This public record addresses issues related to justice by the Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice" team: Sandor Samuels - current President (also Chief Legal Counsel, Countrywide Financial Corporation), Att. David Pasternak - former President , and the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman - former Executive Director.

The concluding statement says:

'This episode, where the current President of the “House of Justice”, the former President of the “House of Justice”, and the former Executive Director of the “House of Justice” are actively colluding in fraud and/or obstruction, is a farce of Justice.'


Joseph Zernik

To view an enlarged, easily readable image of any of the documents in this blog, just click on the document's image.

JUSTICE BY BET-TZEDEK - THE "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" TEAM

March 10, 2008

Dear Friend:

As a person related to Bet Tzedek - the "House of Justice", the Jewish, and/or the legal community, I wanted to share with you a short public record, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 7, 2008, describing justice by a "House of Justice" team - Sandor Samuels - current President (also Chief Legal Counsel, Countrywide Financial Corporation), Att. David Pasternak - former President , and the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman - former Executive Director.

The concluding statement says:
'This episode, where the current President of the “House of Justice”, the formerPresident of the “House of Justice”, and the former Executive Director of the “House ofJustice” are actively colluding in fraud and/or obstruction, is a farce of Justice.'

Joseph Zernik
To view a larger image of any of the pages, just click on the image.

LUNAR ECLIPSE IN LOS ANGELES, FEB 22, 2008

(Photo by SB)

The Big Sleaze

COUNTRYWIDE IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK

COUNTRYWIDE IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK – COMPILATION OF DATA

I.

Nature of the Case

Formally – Real Property Rights, a real estate dispute between Samaan and Zernik
In Fact – Countrywide is the dominant entity in this case.

II .
At a Glance

• Total pages filed by Countrywide so far (rough conservative estimate) ~ 3,000
• Total number of different party designations for Countrywide listed below - 12
• Number of judges whose disqualification openly involved Countrywide so far - 4
• Estimated personal annual income of Sandor Samuels – Party in Interest – many millions
• Estimated personal annual income of Angelo Mozilo – Party in Interest - many millions
• Value of the real property in question, or its ownership to Countrywide, Samuels, and/or
Mozilo – None
• Damages to Countrywide from the publication Jan 8, 2008 of one case of filing fraudulentdocuments in court - -Billions

III.
Designations of Countrywide1 in Court Papers

Lacking in Foundation

1. Transcripts

Date _________Judge_________ Designation
Aug 9, 2007_____ Connor__________ Countrywide
Aug 2, 2007 _____Segal___________ Plaintiff
Aug 1, 2007 _____Segal____________Plaintiff
July 23, 2007____ Connor __________Defendant

2. Minute Orders

Date________ _Judge _________Designations

Jan 15, 2008____ Friedman________ None

(Countrywide’s counsel listed as if it were counsel for Defendant Zernik, Countrywide is not mentioned by name)
Dec 4, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor, Defendant, “not
a party”, “a witness”
Nov 14, 2007____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Nov 9, 2007 _____Segal____________ Intervenor
Nov 5, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 26, 2007____ Segal ____________Intervenor
Oct 23, 2007____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 17, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 11, 2007 _____Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 10, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Aug 09, 2007____ Connor___________ Defendant
July 6, 2007_____ Connor___________ Non-party

REMOVED PER REQUEST

THANKS TO FRIENDS AND TOTAL STRANGERS!

Help arrived in the last two years from friends and total strangers, after our paths mysteriously crossed each other.

THANKS!

Joseph Zernik
Defendant and Cross Complainant
in pro per

FROM CONSPIRACY THEORY TO COMMON WISDOM... JAN 8, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) - Shares of Countrywide Financial Corp. plummeted Tuesday after a New York Times report said the mortgage lender fabricated bankruptcy documents and a Lehman Brothers analyst said the company is unlikely to return to prior profitability levels.
Shares of Countrywide fell $2.17, or 28.4 percent, to $5.47 Tuesday. Earlier in the session,
shares bottomed out at an all-time low of $5.05 after speculation the company was planning to file for bankruptcy itself. Countrywide later denied the rumors.
Countrywide shares have already lost about 26 percent of their value since the beginning of
the year. Since the beginning of 2007, shares of Countrywide have plummeted about 84
percent.
According to the New York Times article, Countrywide "recreated" letters claiming a borrower owed the company $4,700, even though the borrower was under bankruptcy protection.
Countrywide said in a statement documents were not recreated, and that it was not trying to pass off the letters as being sent borrower. Instead, the letters were printed with dates that listed when payment adjustments were made to the borrower's escrow The case is one of 300 bankruptcy cases in western Pennsylvania where Countrywide's practices are being scrutinized.
The nation's largest mortgage lender has been trying to cope with a worsening housing market and rising delinquencies and defaults, among subprime mortgages given to customers with poor credit history.
Countrywide posted $1.2 billion in losses in the third quarter of 2007 because of the weakening mortgage market. Countrywide million during that quarter to cover rising defaults among loans.
The lender essentially shut down its subprime lending operations and is instead focusing on originating loans that conform to Fannie Freddie Mac guidelines. Because the loans meet the criteria of two government-sponsored entities, they are considered safe investments.
But they are also less profitable. Lehman Brothers analyst Bruce Harting cut his fourth-quarter earnings estimate for Countrywide share from 36 cents per share.
"While Countrywide's transition to originating mostly GSE conforming mortgages has reduced balance sheet risk caused by its originations, the dramatic decline in Countrywide's earnings power this transition has caused has kept Countrywide's creditors company's liquidity," Harting wrote in a research note.
Harting said Countrywide will face additional pressure because the weakness in the overall housing market has depressed totally © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

COUNTRYWIDE FRAUD - NYT JAN 8, 2008

FROM CONSPIRACY THEORY TO COMMON WISDOM... NYT JAN 8, 2008

Fraud in the courtroom - common litigation strategy by Countrywide

January 8, 2008
Lender Tells Judge It ‘Recreated’ Letters
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
The Countrywide Financial Corporation fabricated documents related to the bankruptcy case of a Pennsylvania homeowner, court records show, raising new questions about the business practices of the giant mortgage lender at the center of the subprime mess. The documents three letters from Countrywide addressed to the homeowner claimed that the borrower owed the company $4,700 because of discrepancies in escrow deductions. Countrywide’s local counsel described the letters to the court as “recreated,” raising concern from the federal bankruptcy judge overseeing the case, Thomas P. Agresti. “These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark,” Judge Agresti said in a Dec. 20 hearing in Pittsburgh. The emergence of the fabricated documents comes as Countrywide confronts a rising tide of complaints from borrowers who claim that the company pushed them into risky loans. The matter in Pittsburgh is one of 300 bankruptcy cases in which Countrywide’s practices have come under scrutiny in western Pennsylvania. Judge Agresti said that discovery should proceed so that those involved in the case, including the Chapter 13 trustee for the western district of Pennsylvania and the United States trustee, could determine how Countrywide’s systems might generate such documents. A spokesman for the lender, Rick Simon, said: “It is not Countrywide’s policy to create or ‘fabricate’ any documents as evidence that they were sent if they had not been. We believe it will be shown in further discovery that the Countrywide bankruptcy technician who generated the documents at issue did so as an efficient way to convey the dates the escrow analyses were done and the calculations of the payments as a result of the analyses.” The documents were generated in a case involving Sharon Diane Hill, a homeowner in Monroeville, Pa. Ms. Hill filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in March 2001 to try to save her home from foreclosure. After meeting her mortgage obligations under the 60month bankruptcy plan, Ms. Hill’s case was discharged and officially closed on March 9, 2007. Countrywide, the servicer on her loan, did not object to the discharge; court records from that date show she was current on her mortgage. But one month later, Ms. Hill received a notice of intention to foreclose from Countrywide, stating that she was in default and owed the company $4,166.
Court records show that the amount claimed by Countrywide was from the period during which Ms. Hill was making regular payments under the auspices of the bankruptcy court. They included “monthly charges” totaling $3,840 from November 2006 to April 2007, late charges of $128 and other charges of almost $200. A lawyer representing Ms. Hill in her bankruptcy case, Kenneth Steidl, of Steidl and Steinberg in Pittsburgh, wrote Countrywide a few weeks later stating that Ms. Hill had been deemed current on her mortgage during the period in question. But in May, Countrywide sent Ms. Hill another notice stating that her loan was delinquent and demanding that she pay $4,715.58. Neither Mr. Steidl nor Julia Steidl, who has also represented Ms. Hill, returned phone calls seeking comment. Justifying Ms. Hill’s arrears, Countrywide sent her lawyer copies of three letters on company letterhead addressed to the homeowner, as well as to Mr. Steidl and Ronda J. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee for the western district of Pennsylvania. The Countrywide letters were dated September 2003, October 2004 and March 2007 and showed changes in escrow requirements on Ms. Hill’s loan. “This letter is to advise you that the escrow requirement has changed per the escrow analysis completed today,” each letter began. But Mr. Steidl told the court he had never received the letters. Furthermore, he noticed that his address on the first Countrywide letter was not the location of his office at the time, but an address he moved to later. Neither did the Chapter 13 trustee’s office have any record of receiving the letters, court records show. When Mr. Steidl discussed this with Leslie E. Puida, Countrywide’s outside counsel on the case, he said Ms. Puida told him that the letters had been “recreated” by Countrywide to reflect the escrow discrepancies, the court transcript shows. During these discussions, Ms. Puida reduced the amount that Countrywide claimed Ms. Hill owed to $1,500 from $4,700. Under questioning by the judge, Ms. Puida said that “a processor” at Countrywide had generated the letters to show how the escrow discrepancies arose. “They were not offered to prove that they had been sent,” Ms. Puida said. But she also said, under questioning from the court, that the letters did not carry a disclaimer indicating that they were not actual correspondence or that they had never been sent. A Countrywide spokesman said that in bankruptcy cases, Countrywide’s automated systems are sometimes overridden, with technicians making manual adjustments “to comply with bankruptcy laws and the requirements in the jurisdiction in which a bankruptcy is pending.” Asked by Judge Agresti why Countrywide would go to the trouble of “creating a letter that was never sent,” Ms. Puida, its lawyer, said she did not know. “I just, I can’t get over what I’m being told here about these recreations,” Judge Agresti said, “and what the purpose is or was and what was intended by them.” Ms. Hill’s matter is one of 300 bankruptcy cases involving Countrywide that have come under scrutiny by Ms. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee in Pittsburgh. On Oct. 9, she asked the court to sanction Countrywide, contending that the company had lost or destroyed more than $500,000 in checks paid by homeowners in bankruptcy from December 2005 to April 2007. Ms. Winnecour said in court filings that she was concerned that even as Countrywide had misplaced or destroyed the checks, it levied charges on the borrowers, including late fees and legal costs. A spokesman in her office said she would not comment on the Hill case.
O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer in North Carolina who represents troubled borrowers, says that he routinely sees lenders pursue borrowers for additional money after their bankruptcies have been discharged and the courts have determined that the default has been cured and borrowers are current. Regarding the Hill matter, Mr. Gardner said: “The real problem in my mind when reading the transcript is that Countrywide’s lawyer could not explain how this happened.”

FROM "CONSPIRATORIAL THEORY" TO COMMON WISDOM...LOS ANGELES TIMES, DEC 14, 2007

2 states probe Countrywide home loans
The Calabasas lender says California and Illinois have issued subpoenas.
By E. Scott Reckard and Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers December 14, 2007
The nation's No. 1 mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp., is under investigation by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the attorney general's office in Illinois, the Calabasas company said Thursday.
Countrywide said it had received subpoenas for documents from California and Illinois but declined to elaborate, citing company policy. It said it was cooperating in the two probes.

Related Stories
FULL COVERAGE: SOUTHLAND HOUSING MARKET
U.S. investigates Countrywide fees
Groups protest Countrywide actions
Freddie Mac woes may hit Countrywide
Countrywide critics slam board's pay
Countrywide mortgage volume falls 48%
Credit downgrade would have dire effects, Countrywide says

A spokesman for Brown said he couldn't comment. The attorney general has said he was taking a broad look into the lending practices of mortgage bankers and mortgage brokers and what roles they might have played in the mortgage meltdown crisis.
The investigation in Illinois, which was first reported in the New York Times, grew out of a probe into broker One Source Mortgage, which the state has charged with luring borrowers into loans they couldn't afford. Countrywide was the chief provider of these loans known as payoption mortgages which allow a borrower to pay less than the full interest that comes due each month, sending the loan balance up.
A former employee of One Source told investigators that the only Countrywide loan the broker tried to sell was the payoption type because the rebates were so huge, said Veronica Spicer, an assistant Illinois attorney general in the consumer protection division.

IN THE REALM OF DELUSIONAL CLARITY, THE ROAD TO SALVATION IS ONLY TROUGH STATISTICS...

FROM WRIT PETITION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL:

SLEEZY YET CURIOUS AMERICANA

In the realm of delusional clarity the way to salvation is through statistics...

From submission to the California Court of Appeal:

Racetrack

An array of sleezy, yet curious Americana. The photography of Lisa Kereszi is raw and fantastic (reviewed by by Josh Rubin)

NOTHING AS ENDEARING AS A LECTURE ON THE LAW (and ethics) FROM A CRIMINAL...Part II

Angelo Mozilo
Chairman of the Board, CEO,
Chairman of Internal Audit Committee,
Countrywide

Corporate Responsibility
Countrywide's Code of Business Ethics

A Message from the CEO


Countrywide's Code of Business Ethics reflects the company's existing culture and serves as a guide for our directors, officers and employees in their daily activities. In all of our business practices, we are committed to doing the right thing. As a result, Countrywide has a strong reputation for integrity with its customers, business partners, shareholders and its own employees.


A culture of "corporate" ethics can only be built on a strong foundation of "personal" ethics. For this reason, we expect all of our directors, officers and employees to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects Countrywide's commitment to acting ethically and in compliance with the law. Every director, officer and employee is held accountable for complying with this Code.


The very nature of our business dictates a high level of respect for the confidentiality and privacy of customer and business partner information. We are also dedicated to ensuring the accuracy of our financial reporting and all other documentation that we prepare. We have strict policies prohibiting activities that conflict with the interests of Countrywide, our shareholders and our ability to provide unsurpassed service to our customers.


As Countrywide takes its place among the foremost diversified financial services providers, we will continue to set the industry standard for excellence and integrity.


Sincerely,
Angelo R. Mozilo
Chairman and CEO
Countrywide Financial Corporation

NOTHING AS ENDEARING AS A LECTURE ON THE LAW FROM A CRIMINAL...Part I

Mohammad Keshavarzi from Sheppard Mullin et al writing to me:

At 12:58 PM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
I learned today that you have been contacting the staff at the court of appeal. Such ex parte communication is improper. In the future plaintiff needs to be part of your communication with any court.
333 South Hope Street48th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1448213.620.1780 office213.620.1398 faxhttp://www.sheppardmullin.com/ Moe Keshavarzi213.617.5544 direct 213.443.2910 direct faxMKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com Bio

And here is my response, definitely too long...

Moe:

You cannot be serious -

Do you mean you would like to accompany me anytime I go to the clerk's office to pay or copy file records?
Am I supposed to schedule any trip to the clerk's office with you in advance? How about when I call the courtroom assistant for scheduling? Would you expect it to be done by a conference call?
Would such rules apply only to me, or also to you and Countrywide?

Just so I do not dismiss this as ridiculous, please provide the details of the specific communications that you consider as improper and the subject of your email below, as well as the code section or rule of court that is the basis for your unfounded claim.

Needless to say, you have conducted numerous ex parte communications out of compliance and in violation of the law, with, for one example, Judge O'Brien as documented in transcript of Aug 30, 2007 and elsewhere. Similarly, it was just ridiculous watching Judge Goodman try to pretend he had no idea where the Proposed Order you "lodged" with him on September 14, 2007 came from. He should have taken some acting classes before trying to pull off something like that.

Also, I still am waiting to hear how the ex parte hearing of July 6, 2007 by Countrywide, to issue a gag order against me from talking with practically anybody and his brother about Countrywide and Sandor Samuels' corruption, was scheduled in a special court session, for a non-party listed on that day as Plaintiff (one of Judge Connor's innocent small random errors). The only plausible explanation I know of is through an ex parte communication with Judge Connor. Indeed, courtroom assistant told me that the unusual scheduling came directly from Judge Connor. And the only response from attorneys for Countrywide so far was that it involved "nothing improper". And of course, the ruling on July 6, 2007, to allow Countrywide to file moving papers after my deadline for the opposition was just standard due process of the law - the original intent of the framers of the constitution...

Otherwise, it is always a pleasant surprise to learn about the law and regulations from an attorney who appears specialized in providing services beyond the law. Your conduct in Samaan v Zernik, e.g. - the fabrication of fraudulent claims between Nov 3 and Nov 6, 2006, as documented in the 3-ways correspondence with Jae Arre (Samaan's husband - couldn't he pick up a name that reads less fabricated if he wanted to hide his previous identity?) and McLaurin (Countrywide's San Rafael Branch Manager - "the untouchable"), amounts to fraud and deceit - run of the mill criminal conduct.

Unfortunately, you cannot expect every court and every judge to be as cooperative in criminal conduct as Judge Connor. And in that case too, you completely misread the situation. Judge Connor had no interest and no intention of benefiting you or Samaan, only Countrywide. Her decision to award Samaan the right to purchase the property in a declining market, with no attorney fees, is just one indication of that. You were just a collateral beneficiary in a corrupt court action, where the only intent was to cater to any and all of Countrywide's wishes, for a fee, one must assume.

Recently I have been wondering what an attorney, who is versed in the law, like you, would put as the odds that Mozilo and Samuels would end up in jail...

Joseph Zernik
Defendant & Cross Complainant
in pro per